On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:59:43PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
quoted text > + *
> + * Sometimes when this get called, the host inode may be under data
> + * syncing initiated by flush thread(especially for a large file), and
> + * in such situation, we should skip this path of writeback
> */
> static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping)
> {
> @@ -181,6 +185,13 @@ static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping)
> .range_end = i_size_read(mapping->host),
> };
>
> + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> + if (mapping->host->i_state & I_SYNC) {
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> +
inode_lock is not exported to modules, and that's for a pretty good
reason. I think you want to change this code at a higher level to not
compete with the flusher threads at all.
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid the concurrent data writeback , Christoph Hellwig , (Mon Nov 15, 4:27 am)